|
Enough upon that side of the question. But how does the
perfection [goodness] of numbers, lifeless things, depend upon
their particular unity? Just as all other inanimates find their
perfection in their unity.
If it should be objected that numbers are simply non-existent, we
should point out that our discussion is concerned [not with units
as such, but] with beings considered from the aspect of their
unity.
We may again be asked how the point- supposing its independent
existence granted- participates in perfection. If the point is
chosen as an inanimate object, the question applies to all such
objects: but perfection does exist in such things, for example in
a circle: the perfection of the circle will be perfection for the
point; it will aspire to this perfection and strive to attain it,
as far as it can, through the circle.
But how are the five genera to be regarded? Do they form
particulars by being broken up into parts? No; the genus exists
as a whole in each of the things whose genus it is.
But how, at that, can it remain a unity? The unity of a genus
must be considered as a whole-in-many.
Does it exist then only in the things participating in it? No; it
has an independent existence of its own as well. But this will,
no doubt, become clearer as we proceed.
|
|